Saturday 24 December 2016

MOTIVE FOR A COVER UP

Like many I found the two Jonbenet Ramsey documentaries totally mesmerizing, it is a case that has fascinated me for years.  For those unfamiliar with the Jonbenet case, the details were almost a prototype for the Madeleine McCann mystery that was to come. 

Just like the Madeleine case, an exceptionally beautiful child was stolen from her bed in the night, but in Jonbenet's case, her brutalised body was to turn up in the basement.  The first cries of Patsy Ramsey were, my daughter's been kidnapped [and just to prove it], there's a ransom note.  The first cries of Kate McCann were my daughter's been taken, [and just to prove it] the bedroom window is open.  Both mothers are clearing themselves with their opening lines. And it could be said, with statements, and/or actions that they personally have prepared. 

It could be argued that both Patsy and Kate were acting like ferocious mummy tigers.  As a bit of an FMT myself, there have been times when my kids have been in danger or I have perceived them to be in danger.  Times when the fog lifts and I have sprung into action to protect my young.  Times even when I would have signed a deal with the devil himself without bothering to look at the small print.  I certainly would not have sat around weeping, wailing and planning my own defence. 

The problem I have with the weeping and wailing, especially the throwing of himself on the floor by Gerry, is that it simply doesn't ring true.  We are all genetically programmed with survival skills, if we weren't we wouldn't be here. In traumatic situations, our thinking becomes clearer and more determined. That flood of adrenaline enables us to catch the baby before he/she falls on the floor or attempts to drink bleach.  We don't go all fuzzy as the T-rex approaches us, we get the feck out of the way.  The actions of the educated Kate, Gerry and Patsy Ramsey are contrary to human or even animal behaviour.  Our first instincts when our young go missing is to look for them.  For Kate and Gerry, emergency medical situations were part of their vocation.  While the rest of us faint at the sight of blood, a medical professional will stem the artery, we don't expect to see them out cold alongside us.   

And given Gerry's, err let's say, controlling disposition, one thing I have never been able to understand is why he didn't demonstrate his organising abilities with the search parties.  His time, and the time of his wife were, apparently better spent on SOS phone calls to influential people in the UK.  Not the actions of a father desperate to find his daughter, but the actions of a father desperate to hold onto his remaining kids and his reputation perhaps? 

John Bennett wanted to go ahead with his planned flight on Boxing Day, the private plane was at the ready.  He clearly wanted to get his wife and son away from the scene, tellingly he said in an interview, he never spent another night in that house.  Like Gerry, he was not concerned with finding his daughter's kidnapper/ killer, he was protecting his remaining family.

Poor little Jonbenet died on Christmas night according to her tombstone.  The amazing experts who worked on the two documentaries, analysed every part of the evidence in detail.  For myself, I was already beyond reason doubt stage, it was the 3 page ransom note that did it, but I leaned towards the 'unstable mother' findings of Steve Thomas (Jonbenet's Avenger) rather than the theory that the 9 year old brother did it.  I simply couldn't believe that a 9 year old could be physically strong enough or indeed wicked enough, to strike a fatal blow to his sister's head.

After watching both documentaries, I am back to the drawing board.  I then went onto watching the interview with Burke Ramsey and Dr. Phil that included interviews with Burke as a child.  I won't analyse him other than to say he was more than capable of being part of a secret, 'if I did, I wouldn't tell you' he said as a 9 year old.  The adult Burke made uncomfortable viewing.  He was clearly socially awkward and highly defensive, both of himself and his parents.  He was an overprotected child who has grown into an overprotected adult - he has sworn allegiance to his protectors.   

But here's a thing, and it's a statement from last night's superb documentary that made me stop and sit up straight.  What is strong enough to motivate a mother to lie, scheme and plot to the extent that mothers Patsy and Kate are perceived to have done.  Plots so sinister and machiavellion they could be straight out of the dark crime section on the bookshelves.  Such stories are not without basis, history and literature is littered with plotting mums determined to place their little soldiers on the throne.  Figuratively speaking of course.  Neither Patsy nor Kate could protect the daughters they lost, and that kind of pain would drive a mother to do literally anything to protect the children she still has, even to the point of madness. 

It could be argued that everything Patsy, Kate and their husbands have done, has been done to protect their surviving children.  Ie. that's it.  No titillating swinging scene, no paedophile gangs, no government VIPs being flown out of PDL in helicopters, no deep dark secrets. 

Whist the way in which these adults have protected their children is indeed questionable, it is capable of being understood.  Some might say they went way above and beyond, in the ferocity of their fight, and the accumulation of vast wealth and government protection.  That their altruistic motive of 'protecting the kids' was overtaken by fundraising and their own need for public recognition. 

But let's not be churlish.  Tis the season of goodwill, and maybe a good time for many among the antis to consider for one moment that everything the McCanns have done, has been driven by their love for their children.  No dark, sinister motive.  It doesn't excuse their actions, and it doesn't make them right, but it does make them human.

Merry Christmas everyone, I now have a mountain of sprouts to peel, a ham to glaze and a bottle of Irish cream that is screaming to be opened as soon as the ice cubes set.  Forgot to buy ice, doh, not to mention a white tablecloth that desperately needs a wash and will now have to go in with the coloureds :( 

125 comments:

  1. big mistake trying to correlate two completely different cases to try to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "everything the McCanns have done, has been driven by their love for their children. No dark, sinister motive".

    I cannot believe that everything others have done for the McCanns has been for the love of the McCann children. So what would be their motive for a cover up, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Protecting the children could probably apply to the family 17:58, and of course the Tapas group had their own children to protect.

      For the police agencies, missing childrens' charities and the incumbent government's plans to have a national DNA database, the cherubic Madeleine was the ideal poster girl. They want us to believe our children are in constant danger of being stolen from their beds.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda @19:56

      Just like poster 17:58 I cannot believe that everything others have done for the McCanns has been for the love of the McCann children.

      Although your theory sounds plausible, in my opinion this could only be applicable in practice if the McCanns knew their daughter died and, as you say, they and the other Tapas parents were desperate to hold onto their (remaining) children and their reputation.

      But how about their helpers? They must have known that the McCanns would never be charged. How could they have known that?

      NL

      Delete
    3. By helpers I assume you mean their family and other friends, ie. not Tapas.

      I believe family dynamics play a big part here NL. Gerry, the youngest of 5 is the 'Golden Child', doted on by his older siblings. They have probably spent their entire lives protecting and defending him, he is the same person now as he always was.
      Kate, an only child surrounded by doting, admiring adults has no doubt enjoyed similar protection.

      The immediate way in which the McCann and Healy families rallied around Gerry and Kate showed 1)blood is thicker than water, 2)they are quite capable of closing ranks. Think Mafia or The Firm (House of Windsor).

      If their motivation is to keep the parents with the twins, they have an altruistic reason to justify their actions. The ends justify the means and all that.

      As for the non blood helpers, this case offered all sorts of opportunities for those wanting to escape the daily grind of a regular job. Had things gone to plan, the Madeleine Fund would now be a large corporation with cushy directorships and large offices for all.

      Unfortunately, today of all days, whilst trying my best to argue the case for 'Love', Money still remains the answer to every question

      Delete
  3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2016 at 19:56

    your comments get more and more bizarre - maybe you would like to provide a quote for:

    "They want us to believe our children are in constant danger of being stolen from their beds."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are my words unintelligible to you 20:05, why do you need a quote from someone, presumably anyone, else? Just as the Moors Murders changed society in the 1960's, the disappearance of Madeleine changed society again. It wasn't one child going missing, it was the danger to all children, suddenly, even safely tucked up in bed they were at risk.

      How many millions were raised in Madeleine's name, not only the McCanns personal fund, but also for charities such as Missing People and Pace. How about police agencies charged with finding children, were there annual budgets increased?

      Fear is a very lucrative commodity 20:05, ALL governments know this.

      Delete
  4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2016 at 20:26

    Another completely stupid comment - the quote was from YOU at 19:56.

    There is nothing wrong with people learning from things that have happened in the past. In fact you have said so many times that education is the key.

    Your other comments are pure hate and irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "And given Gerry's, err let's say, controlling disposition"

    Do you any independent verification of that - or is it just your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What kind of independent verification? Do such people who go round verifying exist? If so, who are they?

      It doesn't take a psychologist or a mentalist to see that Gerry has control issues. If I could insert an image here, it would have be Gerry with the whiteboard and the wider agenda. Not that's taking control.

      And don't get me started on the body language, one squeeze for yes, two for no. The hugs and the handholding goes much deeper than affection. Should Kate ever have to defend her case, there are hundreds of videos that demonstrate she was under control.

      Delete
  6. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2016 at 20:38

    You are wrong. You are digging yourself into a deep hole here.

    I will repeat what I said earlier

    "You and Bjorn are defending men who have a sexual orientation/attraction to children and trying to defend it and play it down"

    You are now defending any man who has sexual tastes and thoughts about children and saying that is fine as long as they don't do anything!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe regular readers of this blog will notice how many blogs that Ros posts are on the subject of child abuse and paedophilia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To abduct a child is abuse. To assault a child is abuse. Madeleine McCann was either abducted, killed or abused or possibly all three. No( public) evidence supports it . Madeleine McCann suffered this fate in Portugal . Portugal is the European capital of child - trafficking , surpassing even Amsterdam. There's an aim to get justice for Madeleine on this blog. Add all of this up and maybe it might explain it , 21.33

      Delete
  8. And your point is 21:33? I write about what I know 21:33, and the subject of child abuse is one that I have studied all my adult life. Do you know for example that most child abuse is physical and mental, not sexual? That seems to be a detail that has passed you by, yet it is integral to almost every argument I put forward.

    I speak out because I can 21:33, 1. I am female and 2. I am a survivor of institutional (non sexual) abuse myself. I have no agenda to protect abusers, on the contrary, I want to ensure the real ones are caught

    ReplyDelete
  9. "the accumulation of vast wealth and government protection"

    If you're referring to the McCanns, you're being ridiculous.

    ..Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many would consider the millions that flooded in the Maddie Fund, vast wealth 23:49. As for government protection, who else could get the lead detective removed from their case just as he was closing in?

      Delete
    2. And did they personally accrue this 'vast wealth'? Of course not. Is that the sum total of your evidence of government protection? Ridiculous. There is no protection. Just another crazy complication to what is basically a simple but unsolved case.
      ..Chez

      Delete
    3. Well the 'Fund' is for the sole use of Gerry, Kate and family, so it depends on how you interpret personally accrued. None of it has been spent on any other child, and arguably, none of it has been spent on Madeleine.

      Delete
    4. Mean't to say also Chez, the British Government intervening to have the Portuguese lead detective removed from the investigation, is actually a pretty big deal.

      Delete
    5. Why would the Madeleine fund be spent on any other child? Your phrase "the accumulation of vast wealth" is misleading, unfair and, I would suggest, dishonest.
      ..Chez

      Delete
    6. "the British Government intervening to have the Portuguese lead detective removed from the investigation, is actually a pretty big deal". If only...
      ..Chez

      Delete
  10. You done with the sprouts yet dear?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have lol, and I cooked a honey glazed ham from scratch, which looks and tastes divine, even without the cloves that I forgot to get and that I don't like anyway, lol.

    Merry Christmas to you Andrew :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Spot on Ros. No sinister murder plots, just cover ups to keep the other children.
    Can't wait for Jim Clemente to do his McCann investigation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Sandra, do you have any more information or a link on Jim Clemente and his investigation on the McCann case. Cheers.

      Delete
  13. Hi Ros, interesting post and as mentioned earlier very plausible. The only drawback to that theory is both the McCanns left the twins behind to go around the world drumming up support for their plight. I know people will react differently in certain situations but their actions immediately after the disappearance in my opinion raised a few eyebrows. Again I'm not here to judge but I know if my son disappeared under the same circumstances my wife and I would move heaven & earth to find him (I'm ex Army), I certainly wouldn't book tickets to the Vatican or set up a fund. Anyway hope you have a lovely Christmas and all the best for 2017.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello John, hope you are having a wonderful Christmas :)

      The way in which Gerry and Kate behaved in the aftermath was indeed surreal John and probably why so many people worldwide simply don't believe them.

      It's all very well saying no-body knows how the parents of a missing child should behave, but we all know 'in our bones' that we would have been incapable of acting as they did. Most mothers and indeed fathers, would need a straitjacket and a padded cell if they thought their precious child was in the hands of monsters.

      Gerry and Kate were 'over it' within 48 hours. They did not have the fear and terror expected from parents who's little girl had just been 'snatched'. Kate attempts to describe that faux missing terror in her book with her ill considered words on page 129 of her book. Words that were bound to inflame the deviant sex theorists who are driven into a frenzy by the word genitalia. I can see why she allowed her imagination to go there, most mums wouldn't or couldn't, she was trying to maintain the abduction theory and add drama. The mythical bogeyman has worked very well for the McCanns.

      I'm no expert, but I would say in 99.9% of cases, missing children are found within the vicinity of where they vanished, and sadly in most cases they are dead. It is unheard of for them to turn up in another country or on another continent. That's why the McCanns' European tour never made any sense.

      From the moment Madeleine was taken he full forces of every search should have been concentrated on the area where she went missing. The McCanns it would seem, were doing everything in their power to move the search AWAY from PDL. Maybe, as Jon Corner said, Madeleine had a special quality that persuaded the kidnapper to struggle past the two cots containing a boy baby and a girl baby, take your pick, to steal the much larger Madeleine.

      The idea that Madeleine was stolen to order is ludicrous as well as creepy. Perhaps someone had been watching us Kate suggests, perhaps it was that special quality Jon Corner adds. Whoever wanted a child to love had set their heart on Madeleine rather than one or both of the equally adorable twin babies. That's pretty intense given that babies are far more adaptable and easier to move around.

      Delete
    2. I don't think anyone has ever actually asked Kate, Gerry and those child protection experts who befriended them, why if the child was to be kept alive and raised in a new home, they chose an almost school age child over two small babies.

      Other than the creepy 'special' argument, the child to love theory is ridiculous on every level. Unfortunately in this era of false truths, no-one is allowed to say that for fear of adding to the parents' pain.

      Delete
  14. Great blog Ros and a merry Christmas to you. Food for thought and I agree their greatest fear in all this was protecting their remaining children. Unfortunately like Bruke Ramsey those twins will live the rest of their lives under the shadow of what happened. I wonder do they look back now and think if we had thrown our hands in the air admitted what happened, through ourselves at the mercy of the PJ, the court and the medical council we probably could have come out the other side with some resemblance of a normal life instead of the he'll we live in. That goes for the tapas 7 also

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ten years ago the McCanns suffered a terrible tragedy. They, and the T7, lead normal lives albeit without knowing what happened to Madeleine or if she is still alive. The only hell is on social media.
    ..Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @25 December 2016 at 21:10

      “The only hell is on social media.”

      Is that what Gerry McCann meant when he said: “The key thing about social media is it's powerful.”?

      Delete
    2. The case of missing Madeleine and the power of social media seemed to hit the world at the same time 09:16. It worked brilliantly for Gerry all the while he could control it. Unfortunately for him, as enthusiastic as his media monitors were with their threats, thuggery and antisocial behaviour, they could not stop the truth being spread far and wide. Belief that he could actually control social media, is effectively, one of his symptoms.

      Delete
    3. Bonkers! See twitter.com/#McCann for further examples.

      ..Chez

      Delete
    4. Oh don't be ridiculous anonymous at 21.10 of course they all know what happened to Madeleine. It must be hell knowing and pretending you don't ....but they have made their beds and have to lie in them. Unlike poor Madeleine who was given no choice.... The tragedy is entirely hers and of course her siblings. Her parents could and should have protected her and indeed saved her but failed to.

      Delete
  16. An honest,insightful,thought provoking blog as always Ros.
    You put to shame those bickering dwellers at the Cesspit run by Bennett and the demented old ladies Sewage Plant that MMM has become.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do still look in at the cesspit now and again 22:29, but since they stopped talking about me I got bored, lol.

      Their top thread for the past few days features the banning of Canada12 for not agreeing about flower patterns, or something like that, and being obstinate! For shame Canada12!

      Then we have these ridiculous interjections by Petermac who is:

      a) way too busy and important to check in at the cesspit personally
      b) thinks he has found a loophole to disassociate himself from the place should the shit ever hit the fan
      c) thinks he is a credible, independent, expert* who must remain aloof.

      The round and round we go again arguments on the cesspit take tedium off the scale. They made their minds up a long, long time ago, and anything that has happened between 2007 and 2016 has completely passed them by.

      Sadly for them they have had nothing further to add to their sexed up swinging couples and paedophile ring theories, but jeez, haven't they made a hell of lot out of what they have? Let's hope none of them are ever called for jury service.

      Bennett is completely bonkers, and usually I'm OK with that, but his kind of bonkers is nasty and spiteful, his aim is always to make some poor sod's life a misery. When he brought that legal action to have the McCann children put in care, he sickened the entire human race, and probably a fair few beasts.

      Imagine being on Operation Grange opening a letter with a Harlow postmark, or on the receiving end of one of his FOI requests? I think those employees have got real human rights issues going on here, if it were Guantanamo Bay, it would be right up there with waterboarding.

      I don't think anyone takes the cesspit seriously, it is more of a curiosity, like JATKY2. A spooky look at the dark side for behavioural analysts. Both sites still retain a tiny hardcore of posters giving their pompous fascist opinions on subjects their blocked off little brains couldn't even begin to understand.

      Oooh, that was a bit of a rant, lol, but no apologies. For all the hatred, bitterness and ignorance they spread daily, I'm happy to give 'em a couple of right hooks :)





      * Becoming less and less credible with submissions like Hyatt's statement analysis to Operation Grange. I'm guessing he's filed in the loon section alongside Bennett.

      Delete
    2. TB has driven CMMM to the ground which may have been the intention.At the other place MMM they will not ban the main poster however abusive he gets as without him they are left a few wackos pushing their 'maddie never existed'
      etc theories.

      Delete
    3. It is not often one feels sympathy for Mr. Bennett but the duplicitous behaviour of Richard/Mimi has done just that.

      Not funny either,the moral compass seems gone,up the chimney with Santa.

      Delete
    4. Ros says

      "Then we have these ridiculous interjections by Petermac who is:

      a) way too busy and important to check in at the cesspit personally
      b) thinks he has found a loophole to disassociate himself from the place should the shit ever hit the fan
      c) thinks he is a credible, independent, expert* who must remain aloof."
      --------------------------------

      Pervy petermac stopped posting to do important background work immediately after the amaral gofund me fiasco when two payments of substantial amounts were paid into the fund allegedly from serving British Police officers and the person who set up the fund also disappeared.

      Delete
    5. I still have faith that PM is one of the good guys in this saga.Time will tell,the truth will out eventually.

      Surprised that Andrew's comments were allowed on Candy's forum as Forumotion will pull pronto any forum allowing racist,homophobic or threads inciting violence.It happened on my son's boxing forum.It was closed immediately by forumotion after a complaint.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous at 19.58. I am a member of that forum. I don't recall Andrew ever posting anything racist or homophobic. He allegedly made threats in phone calls to Mr Bennett but that has never been proved.

      Any comments in those three categories would have been removed if they had been made.

      Delete
    7. "Re: PeterMac: FREE e-book 'What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

      Post by Get'emGonçalo Today at 14:10
      I've just published Peter's next chapter for him"
      -------------------------------------------------

      Why is pervy PeterMac getting havern to do his dirty work for him?

      Why doesn't he publish it under his own name himself?

      (of course we all know it it the work of bennett - twice removed through petermac and havern.)

      Delete
    8. Nicola @23.04 above:
      ask Andrew he posted it,
      ask Mini she replied to it,
      ask PMR she witnessed it,
      ask Candyfloss she deleted it.

      Hope that helps you, Freedom.

      Delete
    9. Surprised that Andrew's comments were allowed on Candy's forum as Forumotion will pull pronto any forum allowing racist,homophobic or threads inciting violence.It happened on my son's boxing forum.It was closed immediately by forumotion after a complaint.

      ----

      Funny - because I thought that the above comments could also apply to TB and some of his brown noses/socks....who make the most disparaging comments about anyone who disagrees with them. Actually they are hilarious because they are all so stupid.

      Delete
  17. Seriously Chez? The McCanns and the T7 lead normal lives?

    Actually it's not just social media, they have all still got quite a few questions to answer, and nobody is going to forget about that anytime soon.

    The case may be 10 years old, but there is still a live investigation, the child hasn't been found, and Team McCann are regularly feeding the media press releases. Of course it will be discussed on social media.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Absolutely the McCanns & T7 lead normal lives. Why wouldn't they? It was 10 years ago when they misjudged the safety of their children and when one family paid a heavy price. The McCanns rightly do what they can to keep the story and investigation alive. It's only those in certain sub-sections of social media who don't lead normal lives!
    ...Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's only those in certain sub-sections of social media who don't lead normal lives!
      ...Chez"

      The irony.

      Delete
  19. According to SKY news, the police are treating George Michael's death as 'unexplained'. If they can't explain the death of someone who died of AIDS, what hope is there that they can solve the McCann case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous26 December 2016 at 22:12

      I didn't realise that the Coroner's report had been published so soon.

      Delete
    2. We don't know yet if it's AIDS related.

      Delete
    3. Exactly Gwen but Anon at 22.12 seems have made a decision already.

      Delete
  20. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 December 2016 at 03:45

    "I do still look in at the cesspit now and again 22:29, but since they stopped talking about me I got bored, lol.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    You must have missed bennett's Christmas Eve comment about Poulton and you:

    "Another look at the Last photo

    Post by Tony Bennett on 24.12.16 13:20"

    " I did call her a 'pretentious impostor'. Without going over old ground, I will simply suggest that she has never done one single thing to promote the truth about what happened to Madeleine, and indeed she has often done the very reverse...giving platform to nutcases like Birch & Shrimpton...arranging for her friend Hutton to shame our cause by a two-page article in the Sun portraying McCann-sceptics as 'bitches who get a buzz out of squishing the McCanns', and referring to this ever more popular and well-read forum as a 'cesspit'. Should we keep silent about such 'great pretenders'?"

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10497p650-another-look-at-the-last-photo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that quote from Igor's site sums up perfectly why online investigations are becoming about as reliable as the mainstream..the only difference is the mainstream have no pig tail-pulling..

      Delete
    2. Yeh that was like being mauled by a dead sheep, lol. After all Bennett's publicity seeking antics, it's quite ironic that he is still claims I shamed his cause! He has no self awareness whatsoever.

      Delete
  21. bennett on 23.12.16 0:25: "The forum has been going for over 7 years now and is popular and trusted by the thousands who visit here every day."
    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10497p650-another-look-at-the-last-photo

    verdi on 22.12.16 23:28: "I think you need to remember that hundreds of people read this forum..."
    ------------------------------------------

    Oh dear - verdi seems to be not following the bennett party line of gross exaggeration to try to impress.

    So which is it - thousands - hundreds - or is it even tens?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know about ‘popular and trusted’, but many read the forum, as can be seen from their Live Traffic Feed. The case has attracted (international) attention and people are still looking for information. As Gerry McCann said: “We need to obtain that key piece of information, that 'missing piece of the jigsaw'."

      Apart from a handful of contributors there, I doubt that anyone’s interested in unfortunate side effects.

      Delete
    2. Actually Bennett has done the opposite of promoting the truth in the Madeleine mystery. Any mainstream journalist who has had the gumption to dip a toe into this debacle has been torn to shreds by Bennett and the cesspit dwellers. His odious behaviour is right up there with the worst of the pro McCann thugs.

      As for his ridiculously inflated viewing figures, these are not reflected in the forum, the comments seem restricted to a small handful of hardcore cesspit members who appear to have no outside lives whatsoever. The new members who so quickly come and go, are obviously fake, whilst any genuine new members are investigated and accused of being there to disrupt.

      I think the lack of courtesy and sheer rudeness of the 'regulars' must be off putting, they don't appear to have any social graces whatsoever. I wonder if they act in the same belligerent manner in the real world or if it is the anonymity that makes them so 'brave'.

      Delete
  22. millions of people read 50 shades of Gray
    does that make it literature of worth.. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't Ziggy, but it captures the Zeitgeist and didn't she do well!

      Meanwhile, I continue my lifelong struggle for perfection dealing with unpopular subjects and less lucrative causes. Not that I'm bitter, lol.

      Is it too early to say Happy New Year? I'm guessing no, and it's a fantastic phrase, so Happy New Year to you Ziggy!

      Delete
  23. In Gerry’s famous jigsaw about an “alien” abduction, there isn’t one single piece that fits another, while in the other one, that about his and Kate’s involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, all the pieces, without regard to the ongoing investigation, seem to fall into place, Just a few small bits are still missing, and Gerry and Kate know so well where to find them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ( I thought alien abductions were Richard D Hall's thing lol )

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, Ziggy
    Richard D Hall and Gerry have more things in common, than their belief in "aliens", in that they are very good at inventing stories and making people listen. It's always interesting to listen to them, and there is always some truth in their stories, but most of them are just fairy tales. Any child would know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They appeal to primitive instincts Bjorn, they are cavemen!

      Having said that, I did watch the first 4 hours of RH, or at least I think I did, nothing memorable springs to mind. Hyatt, is probably a couple of steps up the rung, but his core audience are non graduate religious zealots from the hillbilly areas of the Midwest. Probably not too dissimilar from the niche audiences of Bennett and Hall.

      They are a distraction nothing more, and will be swiftly washed away when the true facts of this case emerge. All that will be left will the credible experts, those who have watched this case with an open mind, those not stuck in a quagmire of their own making.

      Unfortunately for those who's theories are carved in stone, as soon as one minor part of their 'research' is exposed as trash, or worse, laziness, the rest goes straight to the shredder. Something that still hasn't resonated with Richard Hall, or, as yet, Petermac.

      You simply can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

      Delete
  26. @Rosalinda
    The zeitgeist. I fear you're right.God help us all :)
    And no it's not too early..happy new you year you too young lady:) x

    ReplyDelete
  27. And to you Ziggy, I am just enjoying the memory of George Michael. I think any man who wants to attempt to dance should be forcibly sat in front of 'I'll be loving you always' so George can show them how it's done, lol. Maybe I should add Justin Timberlake bringing sexy back to that shortlist too, ha ha.

    Ah well, 2017, it ends it a 7, that has to be good!

    ReplyDelete
  28. On the flip side , so to speak, there was 'young guns'. I think if it was a choice between George ( god rest him) and 'dad dancing' I'd rather get caught doing the latter . Maybe i'm just jealous as i don't suit tiny shorts, baggy tee- shirts or waving my back cheeks about ( it wouldn't be fair to tantalise unsuspecting ladies now would it).Sadly the days of throwing my feet around like loose change are left behind in a certain well known northern soul venue. It no longer stands. I'm not suggesting it's because i stopped going but there's no evidence either way. Justin Timberlake..latter day Stan Laurel but with a nicer hat.
    And yep..let's hope the septimal law brings the world some light and takes out some of the dark sorcerers.. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Rosalinda
    Impatiently waiting for the snow to fall any day soon now, and also looking forward to reading your blog next year, I wish you a Happy New Year.

    My hopes for the next year, as far as the Madeleine case is concerned, is that Kate would, at least once, talk about her daughter “gone missing” instead of “been abducted”. Such a small change in her vocabulary could eventually dissolve the “tapas 9 pact” and make a few of them tell us more. Some of them must feel a need to do so. After all, they are just normal human beings, and certainly not monstrous child abusers.

    If Madeleine really did die, due to an accident in the apartment, as many believe, it’s not unlikely that the McCanns and a few of their friends immediately felt, that they, for reasons not yet known, were morally responsible. Having no knowledge about the Portuguese legal system, they may have imagined unpleasant consequences and panicked. Their strong feeling of togetherness made them protect one another against the “enemy”, that is, the Portuguese P J. An awkward decision made just within a few minutes changed a lot to the worse in their lives. Once they had taken this first step, there wasn’t any turning back. Now ten years later, with just a little help from Kate, their friends may realise, that there is still time to atone for their sins. So I put all my faith in their ability to feel remorse.
    (And of course a Happy New year to everybody who comments on Rosalinda’s Blog)



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn, hope you had a good Christmas and all the best for 2017.

      I agree with the theory that Madeline died in the apartment by a tragic accident, and perhaps the reasons mentioned they decided to try and sort out the problem themselves. I don't think panic had set in at this point. I believe the only true sighting was by the Smith Family,then things started to go wrong, timings alibis etc. I could suggest panic had set in after Yvonne Martin appeared on the scene next day and began to express her concerns, causing someone within that group to call in the Calvary. The rest is history as the say.

      Delete
    2. Hi John, I wish you a happy New Year
      Yes, Yvonne Martin's unexpected appearance the following day must have been embarrassing indeed for the McCanns. The "tapas 9 organizer", Dave Payne, did his best to get rid of her, and I believe, that he had a good reason for doing so, because she could have made Kate talk, had she got a chance to stay with her just a little longer. As for the Smiths' sighting, I find it strange, to say the least, that there are people, whether they are antis or pros, who question it. Anyway let us wait and see what happens in the case next year.

      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn, My theory is once Gerry knew he had been spotted, he phoned Kate to raise the alarm to cover his absence - hence the deleted mobile phone call history's. Then Jane Tanner's alleged sighting which was almost identical to the Smith's sighting as Gerry knew what he was wearing that night, and again his claim he didnt see the alleged abductor whilst talking to his friend that night as he would be describing himself and perhaps in his mind being repeatedly questioned about it. Also his answers would be compared to Jane Tanner's, which would have been interesting to say the least. Bearing in mind the JT sighting was mentioned well after the event. I agree, I find it strange that the Smith family sightings are being disputed by both sides, even Richard D Hall,s I have to say well made documentary, but he has everyone involved, MI6, MI5, KGB, CIA and Lord Lucan. Again this my view on the case and absolutely nothing to do with paedophilia at all.

      Delete
    4. Hi John agin
      Essentially, I agree with you, but I really shouldn’t speculate so much and focus too much on details, as I’m not a detective. It’s really not my take on the case.

      It’s of course possible, that Gerry after having met the Smiths around 21H55-57, (that time should not be disputed), may have phoned Kate, as you say, but if so, I think it would have been with the purpose of making her prepare herself for doing, what she was expected to do, but just a little sooner than planned.

      I don’t think Gerry’s bumping into the Smiths changed so much, but he had of course to hurry back to the table as soon as he could, after he had done, whatever it was he did.

      Still, I believe that Gerry, before taking Madeleine’s body away, instructed Kate not to raise the alarm, before his return to the tapas restaurant, because he desperately needed an alibi.

      In the time line, written down on a piece of paper, just before the Police arrived or possibly shortly after, the tapas 9 tried to establish, that Kate had alerted about Madeleine’s disappearance at 22H00 HRS.

      If that would be true, then the man that the Smiths saw cannot have been Gerry, that is, if he really was at the table at this point of time, as one witness outside the tight tapas 9 group (I’ve have not her name in my head right now) has stated.

      However, after having read all the witness statements in the p j files, in which something about time indications is mentioned, I find it more likely that Kate may have raised the alarm after 22H15 or possibly around 22H20, which means that Gerry could have been present at the tapas restaurant, when she raised the alarm, as their friends and this independent witness claim, but still absent at the time when the Smiths saw a man, who looked almost exactly like Gerry McCann.

      Thus, I assume, that we may have a false time line here, whose instigator is one of the tapas 9, namely Russell O’Brian. I really hope that the operation Grange have investigated this thoroughly enough.

      Delete
    5. Hi Bjorn, Which is why the PJ wanted the whole group to assist in a reconstruction of the events that night to among other things establish the timings in their statements.

      Delete
    6. Hi John
      It's really sad, that the "tapas 7" refused to participate in a reconstruction. If that had come about, Jane Tanner's witness statement would certainly have been dismissed/ruled out at an early stage and a lot more would have been clarified regarding the time line. Gerry and Kate never did anything to make their friends return to PDL. Instead they were pleased, that a reconstruction could not be carried out in their absence. I've never heard, that they have criticized their friends' decision to stay away from PDL.

      Delete
  30. "JonBenét Ramsey's brother sues CBS for $750million over cold case special that accused him of killing his pageant queen sister

    Burke Ramsey, 29, filed a $750million lawsuit against production company CBS and seven consultants on Wednesday in a Michigan court
    The lawsuit surrounds the CBS special 'The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey' which aired in September
    In the special, investigators accused Burke of being behind the 1996 murder of his six-year-old beauty queen little sister
    His lawsuit was filed just two days after the 20-year anniversary of the crime
    JonBenét's Christmas murder has never been solved "

    http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t10p175-jonbenet-ramsey#73254

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros - you seem to have changed my link that was to the article in the Daily Mail - to a link to MMM?

      Delete
    2. I can't change posts 12:32, I can only publish what is there. Please do feel free to send again :)

      Delete
    3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4071724/JonBen-t-Ramsey-s-brother-files-750million-lawsuit-against-CBS-cold-case-special-accused-killing-pageant-queen-sister.html

      Delete
  31. Burke Ramsey should sue Dr Werner Spitz first. Then start sueing the police department and their bosses. That neck of the American woods has to be one of the weirdest on the planet with its growing track record of 'shock' killings .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ ziggy - he already has - it's in the Daily Mail article:

      "This is the second lawsuit that Burke has filed in the wake of the TV special.

      In October, he filed a $150million lawsuit against Dr. Werner Spitz, a crime expert whose interview about the case was used on the show."

      Delete
  32. @18:34
    excellent..that character assassination from Spitz was a disgrace. People only see Burke the young man now but it was Burke the little boy that was being destroyed by him. Jon Benet's death, whatever the cause and whoever the culprit, was like a bomb going off for the family. Then her mother dying of cancer. That's a sister and mother to a 9 year old boy just gone.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Many thanks for the links to the Burke Ramsey lawsuit.

    I have to say it was strange to watch as the experts reached the conclusion that 'Burke' did it. That is quite an allegation against a living person, but I am sure the makers, CNN, looked at all the legal implications before broadcasting the two documentaries.

    It could lead to a situation where the 'criminal trial' will take place in the Civil Courts - something that I am sure will be watched closely by Gerry and Kate McCann, who are 7 or is it 8, years into their own civil proceedings against Goncalo Amaral. I wonder if the US courts move any quicker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again Ros - you are trying to link completely unrelated cases with completely different circumstances.

      That is wrong.

      Delete
  34. I notice that havern was so orgasmic yesterday that she posted a link to a Guardian article where the recluse, doing such important work behind the scenes, is too important to bother posting but will do it through havern - petermac - had made a couple of comments on an article.

    His two profound and insightful posts achieved a combined total of 9 (yes nine) recommends - and that is despite her publishing it to the thousands (bennett) of supporters of CMOMM.

    link if you want http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13358-the-guardian-can-you-spot-the-real-fake-news-story#353655

    ReplyDelete
  35. A hearing on Spitz’s motion for summary disposition is currently scheduled for Feb. 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

    http://people.com/crime/werner-spitz-files-response-to-burke-ramsey-lawsuit/

    And (IMO) an excellent comment from Ron Beau Phillips:

    “It is clear that this crime was done by someone inside the house. The note is so obviously fake and written by Patsy.
    That said, speculation that it could have been Burke is legitimate, but far from conclusive. It could have been Patsy losing her temper. It could have been (though this is unlikely) someone else the family knew and was covering up for.
    If I had to place a bet, I'd put it on Patsy. That woman was unstable and invested in that child's being "perfect" to an unhealthy extent.
    If that is the case, I feel very sorry for Burke. To be suspected, when it was all his mentally unstable mother.
    Heck, even if Burke did strike his little sister and injure her, I still feel for the poor man. He was a small child, if he made a mistake, his mother magnified it a thousand times with her crime scene staging (with sexual assault) and fake note.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If I had to place a bet If I had to place a bet, I'd put it on Patsy."

      "And there I rest the case for the prosecution."

      Nonsense.

      Delete
  36. Not much effort needed 19:56. There has been no criminal prosecution in the Jonbenet or Madeleine cases, and in both cases, family involvement and a cover up is strongly suspected.

    The mother Patsy Ramsey, and some might say, chief suspect, passed away many years ago, but a cloud of suspicion still hangs over John Bennett Ramsey and Burke Ramsey. Without Patsy can there ever be a criminal prosecution?

    Burke Ramsey could well be walking into a trap. He may, like OJ Simpson, be found 'guilty' in a Civil Court and the damage to his reputation, thousands of times worse because the trial will find a bigger audience for the findings of the documentaries.

    The same of course happened to Gerry and Kate McCann. In their efforts to ban Goncalo Amaral's book, they helped make it a bestseller and have kept the publicity for it going for 7/8 years. It is commonly known as the Streisand Effect, and something all potential litigants should check out before they issue that Writ.

    The Madeleine case may yet lead to a criminal trial. Operation Grange remains live and at some point they will have to account for what they have been doing for 5+ years and what conclusions they have reached.

    Meanwhile, all the time the proceedings are going on between the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral, all the holes in the abduction story are being held up to public scrutiny. The Crimewatch documentary for example drew tens of thousands to the internet and support for the parents dropped to an all time low.

    Far from being completely different the tragedies of JonBenet and Madeleine have unfolded in remarkably similar ways. Both involve mythical bogeymen, global publicity, parents who would not co-operate with the police and parents with enough wealth and connections to change public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 December 2016 at 22:06

    1. child "disappeared" and was found in her own house murdered a short time afterwards.
    2. child disappeared from a holiday apartment and no body has been discovered.

    All your after events are just you imagination.

    Focus on the facts 1 and 2. when you draw comparisons and do not invent links.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ddon't think you are a lady 22:06, but you doth protest too much. So they did follow the Ramseys lead!

      To be fair I don't think the McCanns honestly expected the amazing financial response to their (daughter's) plight. They could not have foreseen that the Fund would hit millions within days.

      From then on, they were (almost) in the same privileged position as the super rich Ramseys. They employed top lawyers, spokesmen, and public image agencies. However, the Ramsey's wealth was build on solid ground, the McCanns was fleeting - they have only one USP, and that has long since worn thin.

      Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate, the chances of their winning a financial reward from Goncalo Amaral are becoming increasing more thin. If the upper Court find in their favour it will affect every book written by every former detective, expert, or researcher throughout Europe publishing details of cases they have worked on. Ie. It is a ridiculous demand that could send more feisty European nations into a revolution. No-one wants Gerry and Kate's form of authoritarian censorship.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ros, I'm all for free speech and freedom of expression, even if I disagree I will defend that persons right to say what they want. Gerry has quoted he agrees that people can express their own theories, but in the case of GA's book it was a theory without evidence hence why the court case. Which is quite ironic as his claims of abduction had definitely no evidence either. At least with GA's theory there is some circumstantial evidence.

      Delete
    3. I don't think Gerry gets irony John. If Goncalo can't put forward his staged theory without evidence, then strictly speaking Gerry can't put forward his abduction theory, because there is no evidence for that either.

      Their entire legal proceedings against Goncalo are farcical. A legal expert opining on the proposed legal action of Burke Ramsey pointed out that experts giving their opinion on factual evidence is not libel unless there is malicious intent.

      In Gerry and Kate's case they may feel there is malicious intent from Goncalo, but as can be seen from the book and the documentary, Goncalo had knowledge of the case (obviously, he was the lead detective) and he is 'reporting' the facts as he knows them. That isn't malicious.

      Gerry and Kate have been free from day 1 to claim Madeleine was abducted, and indeed they made that the breaking news and have since sued anyone who says she wasn't. Why should Goncalo not be free to say she wasn't abducted? Why should only one theory on Madeleine's disappearance be allowed?

      Gerry, the doted on youngest sibling and macho man, is demanding the same acceptance and obedience from the public that he expects in his own little patriarchal domain. 'I've spoken, so that's the end of it'.

      However, like most little Caesars, he has discovered that in the wider world, his word doesn't carry the same weight. We are all not all looking at him with the goo goo eyes of Kate and his sisters.

      I actually feel a tad for sorry for him, he has had to learn some harsh lessons, and no doubt his authority and alpha male standing has taken quite a few knocks. The only way he can get his testicles back is by beating Goncalo Amaral in a Civil Court and it is now apparent that is not going to happen.

      Delete
    4. "Gerry, the doted on youngest sibling and macho man, is demanding the same acceptance and obedience from the public that he expects in his own little patriarchal domain. 'I've spoken, so that's the end of it'.

      However, like most little Caesars, he has discovered that in the wider world, his word doesn't carry the same weight. We are all not all looking at him with the goo goo eyes of Kate and his sisters.

      I actually feel a tad for sorry for him, he has had to learn some harsh lessons, and no doubt his authority and alpha male standing has taken quite a few knocks. The only way he can get his testicles back is by beating Goncalo Amaral in a Civil Court and it is now apparent that is not going to happen."

      ROFL. This tells me more about the author than it does about Gerry McCann!

      ...Chez

      Delete
  38. It isn't wrong to discuss the similarities of both cases as there re so many similar hallmarks.I don't see where Ros is actually linking them ( to link them would be to name people that are involved in both of the cases ).
    Similarities..
    The 'targets' were both left vulnerable at night. Both were small pretty blonde girls ( a favourite of certain rings). Both had what would have been scenes of crime contaminated.Both had police forces removed and replaced. Both had people in higher positions interfere in ways that protected the parents.Both had what little forensic evidence that was left challenged and dismissed ( DNA in Ramsey case has been a bone of contention, DNA in McCann cadaver dogs evidence the same ). Both occured in places that have a history of child abuse and abusers . Both have dismissed witness statements . Both have dismissed neighbours who heard screams .
    Burke will win, in my opinion, in any court. If he did it, there'd be DNA . The modus operandi of the Ramsey murder suggests a powerful torture element- so powerful that it's hard to argue it was a one off. I doubt there's a 9 year old anywhere who could construct and use a garrote so proficiently .Evidence of photographs show small crescent shaped nail marks on Jon's neck as she fought to get the hands off and rope loose.Burke's Skin would have marks, possibly blood. There was between half an hour and an hour the stun gun and strangling.
    The note attempted clumsily to sound 'foreign' but Americanisms were 'embedded'( no offence Mr Hyatt). Patsy seems to have written it.No abductor goes to so much effort unless he's taking a hostage. They don't leave a body and a note with clues and a planted footprint.Unless they think it's a foolproof red herring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I strongly urge you to watch the two Jonbenet documentaries Ziggy, you may find your opinions swayed.

      I have, quite rigidly it must be said, stuck to the findings and theory of Steve Thomas, the detective who resigned in protest and who earned the nickname Jonbenet's Avenger.


      Much of his findings compare to the findings of the experts in the documentaries. That is, there was no stun gun and the 'garotting' and sexual abuse appeared staged. That is, to make it look as though Jonbenet had been murdered by a paedophile.

      I have never considered Burke a suspect. I don't know if a 9 year old is capable of striking a blow violent enough to prove fatal - either mentally or physically. Should add, the experts concluded that Jonbenet died from a fatal blow to the head. The cover up, the staging, was probably carried out by the parents with Burke out of the way.

      Watching the interview with the 9 year old Burke two weeks after Jonbenet's death was surreal. I was left in no doubt that he knew about the cover up, and that he was part of a 'family secret'.

      I think Burke is taking a big risk. Details of what happened that night will be held under a microscope. As an adult, he came across appallingly in a recent interview with Dr. Phil. He appeared to be grinning, possibly sneering, throughout and many of his statements were clearly disingenuous. He would be torn to shreds in the witness box.

      However, $150million is a pretty big prize and he may feel that a win in a libel Court will clear his and his parents' names once and for all.

      I'm still torn I have to say. I think Patsy was very unstable and it is not difficult to think of her lashing out at Jonbenet. However, the experts argued Jonbenet was Patsy's dream child, to the detriment of Burke, and that she would not 'damage' her precious daughter. Burke they said, had reasons to be jealous of his sister, and it was known he once hit her in the face with a golf club.

      I can't say I am completely convinced and I intend to watch the documentaries again. The interviews with Burke, as a 9 year old and 12 year old were, err, very insightful, and you can see why the adult Burke is so angry.

      I kind of see his point though. There are all sorts of laws protecting children who give evidence and quite rightly. They are not mature enough to understand the implications of what they are saying, is it right to hold it against them as adults? I highly recommend watching the videos, before they are pulled. It is fascinating to watch REAL forensic psychologist and statement analysts etc at work!

      Delete
  39. There is something very strange about the internet and interesting cases.

    In the past you would go down the pub and express an opinion about what had been reported. There may have been arguments and disagreement - but it would have been confined to a few blokes and women just having a chat.

    Mainly that would be the end of it - unless there was a further report.

    Nowadays anyone can open up a chatroom or blog or twitter and just make say anything they want to anyone around the World. Getting "likes", "recommends" or "hits" from complete strangers, means nothing at all.

    People from all over the World are suddenly praised and accepted without versification - if they agree with you.

    Those that opposite you - not so.

    Numbers apparently count - who agrees or disagrees?

    The reason for my post is this - The Mccanns are innocent because the have never been arrested, charged, taken to court and convicted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot agree with you 23:12, 'interesting' cases have always captured the public's imagination, we are still talking about Jack the Ripper! Human interest stories especially, some can go on for decades, the Lindberg baby for example were different theories continue to appear.

      You sound as though you are not enjoying the internet as much as you could 23:12, isn't it fantastic that we can now find any information on any subject we want? This is a new age of enlightenment 23:12, isn't that something to rejoice?

      As for your final paragraph, why you sweet old fashioned thing. Having not been caught is not proof of innocence. To change the subject slightly, well quite dramatically, I have been watching The Borgia. Apart from having to put a pillow over my face for all the gory scenes, I am finding it a rather cynical and tad racier version of 'The Thick of It'. That is it shows all the wicked machinations that go on in the corridors of power - we don't know the half of it!

      Such is the way my deranged mind works, I am starting to see old Donald Trump at Rodrigo gawd 'elp us.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you firmly Rosalinda, that internet is fantastic, in that we can find whatever we are looking for, and it’s of course up to each of us to value and sort out what’s true and what isn’t, in an endless flow of information. No-one else can do that for us, definitely not the Government.

      The principle of openness, all citizens’ rights to gain access to public documents (as the p j files), an uncensored internet and freedom of expression are foundation stones in every democracy and in every civilized society, as in Portugal. That’s why we are still allowed (not all of us of course, some will be sued) to discuss the Madeleine case on social media, without being prosecuted or imprisoned for speaking out, even if what we say is against the official “truth”. We should do our best to defend an open society. What will happen if we don’t?


      Delete
    3. Isn't it amazing Bjorn! I still have to pinch myself each day because I find it all so mind-blowingly awesome!

      I spent my teenage years and the first half of my adult life scouring libraries and carrying round heavy books. I'm the kind of person who unashamedly gets carried away with books, films and TV programs, and when a subject interests me, I have to know more, there is no choice, lol.

      In the early 1980's I was totally captivated by the TV series Edward VII and I searched the libraries and anywhere I could think of to get hold of a large scale chart of the royal families of Europe. I never actually got hold of what I wanted until at least 10 years later (Tower of London giftshop), though I have to say I enjoyed the years looking.

      I always shared my dear old dad's quest for knowledge Bjorn, he signed up with the tallyman for a set of encyclopaedias when he got his first job. I imagine trying to explain to him that everything he ever wanted to know is now available within seconds. I can almost hear his thick Scottish accent saying, 'away with your stories', lol.

      We have the internet because it was discovered and advanced by a new breed of altruistic young geniuses who want no truck with the sinister machinations of the establishment. Jim Gamble as head of CEOP and some might say look out for Tony Blair and Tom Watson, was never going to get on with someone like Mark Zuckerberg.

      I hope the owners of the social networks hold out for as long as they can. I fear that the freedom we now enjoy will always be under threat by governments waving false flags. The internet spreads terrorism, the internet spreads paedophilia. The internet is 'lawless', how can be that ANYone can use it? Shouldn't it be restricted to an elite few and those who have 'earned' the privilege? Why should something this wonderful be available to the masses? The owners of the social networks have made fortunes? How many more fortunes could be made if access were available at, say, bronze, silver, gold and platinum levels? The more you pay, the more information available to you? (presently watching the Borgias, lol).

      I imagine the fight to keep the internet freely available to everyone has already been raging for years. The 'secret services' of every country trying their utmost to find reasons to condemn social media as a threat to national security. Naturally, they would give a right arm and probably throw in a lung, to have access to the information held by Facebook, Twitter, Google etc, that kind of information could keep a government in power forever more.

      One of the reasons I keep the paedophilia discussions at the forefront, is my fear that the myths will sway public opinion. Perhaps even to the extent, that they will vote for laws that will allow the government to police the internet.

      Of course, the above might well be moot. With daily advances in technology, those secret services have probably gained all the access to our private information they need, albeit not legally.

      However, what they really really want is the power to remove 'subversives' from the internet. Websites like The Canary and little people like myself, who speak unbound by ties to massive corporations.

      This has turned into a blog Bjorn, many thanks for the inspiration! I love the internet so much, my greatest fear is that it will somehow be taken away! :(

      Delete
    4. Hi Rosalinda
      I too fear that new laws aimed at restricting internet freedom may be inaugurated in many Western countries, but hopefully common sense will prevail. At least I’ll do my best to argue against such stupidity.

      Just a few hours away from 2017, I wish you, and others here, a Happy New Year

      Delete
    5. Happy New Year to you too Bjorn! And thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to contribute such insightful thoughts to the discussions, my cyber gift to you is a small statuette of Rodin's 'The Thinker' lol. Happy New Year my friend. x

      Delete
  40. Ros
    I've seen a few documentaries so i may have already seen the one you refer to. The two 'spike' marks apparently fitted the spikes of Burke's toy railway track.But using an anaesthetised pig ( not to be confused with the Youtube commentators or certain bloggers) A taser to replicated human flesh it was an exact replica. One dot left was slightly larger than the other on Jonbenet because it wasn't held flush so burned. The same thing was seen on the pig. According to forensics it seems by the colouring (manly red) of the crescents they can say whther or not the strangling took place pre or post mortem, the findings suggest pre. Staged or not staged, the time of it all in the basement was minimum 3/4 of an hour and probably the same for the note to be finalised. The 'bulldog' character (ex police now PI) says he's confident he could name a killer but won't( so why did he get involved).
    I've dipped in and our of the case, as i have the McCann( i tend to delve deeper into a lot of other psy-ops and false flags of recent years and further back). I've read a lot about links between certain ritual abuse rings, satanists and other bizarre wonders. A lot is garbage. But there's always garbage before you hit a gem or strike oil . That's why we dig( shame the police didn't ). If you discuss Satanism, rreemasonic rituals, dates or their ilk, people are generally conditioned to switch off and decide what you think before you say anything. They go for the theorist because they're too closed minded or lazy to take on the theory. I believe the dates involved in Ramsey and McCanns cases are significant but that's another avenue.
    There's a fascinating private war going on between the people behind ChessVersusCheckers youtube channel and the Boulder police dept.They swear the man behind it leads a weird anti - abortion ( as well as anti a lot of other things) faction . His name is Bob Enyart. I've listened to him on his radio station. He's a religious nutcase professing to be a christian who rants about everyone before judging them( Jonestown /cia anyone ?).There's some fascinating stuff in those recorded conversations..give them a browse..
    @anon 23.12
    I have no time for Facebook, twitter or social networks at all. I don't care who 'likes' or 'dislikes' me or my words or ideas. The hive mind is infected. I steer clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The taser and the intruder theory was put forward by Lou Smit, a former respected detective and commissioned by Alex Hunter, the DA who did not want to prosecute the Ramseys.

      I watched the Lou Smit documentary several years ago and remember at the time thinking why would an intruder need a stun gun to overpower a 6 year old and in any event where would he get one? If tasers are freely available in the US, why do they keep killing each other with guns?

      I don't know why Lou Smit made that documentary, but I guess the same could be said of Emma Loach, Donal MacIntyre and Mark Williams Thomas, who have all bent over backwards to prove the McCanns innocence.

      Delete
  41. @ros

    '' the wicked machinations that go on in the corridors of power - we don't know the half of it! ''

    If you'd like a lot more to look at i can let you have them.But you can't read through a pillow. Something for you to consider though ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous 29 December 2016 at 23:12

    "There is something very strange about the internet and interesting cases."

    Don’t worry, according to Kate McCann we are faceless, anonymous lowlife, locked away in our bedrooms talking to one another online. LOL
    She thanks God for the nice ‘quiet majority’.

    It has been far more upsetting and damaging, frankly, to find ourselves let down by people in positions of trust, the very people who ought to be acting in Madeleine’s best interests., says Kate McCann.

    The internet provides people with information and is not necessarily an enemy of books. What's not to like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 23:12
      ''frankly, to find ourselves let down by people in positions of trust, the very people who ought to be acting in Madeleine’s best interests''

      There were 9 of those eating and drinking in the Tapaz the night Madeleine slept 100 yards away..we're showing more concern, Katie.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy and a Happy New Year!
      Didn't Mrs Fenn (their nearest neighbor in PDL overhear Kate saying "we have let her down"? So Kate must be referring to herself and her husband, when she's talking about people "who ought to be acting in Madeleine's best interest" in her book. What else could it be?

      Delete
  43. Happy New Year, everyone!

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy New Year to you T, and thank you for your amazing contribution. We may not always agree, but that's a good thing. On the fundamentals we know what is right.

      My offer to Kate still stands. At some point she may be demonised way beyond anything we have seen thus far. And, as we have seen, all the experts who have advised her couldn't have been more wrong. The perfectly groomed goody goody image they created for her is not endearing. Other mothers have been completely unable to empathise with her. Mothers of toddlers especially, who generally have that 'mad woman in the attic' look about them, unbrushed hair, baby sick on the collar, and that hangdog expression that says 'OK kid, you win, feed the entire tub of icecream to the dog'.

      Of course the 'perfect' image may well have been created by herself, but it is kind of sad that Kate has had to invent what she perceives to be the 'perfect' family, then live it forever more.

      If Kate wants to find inner peace, she needs to accept her flaws and the flaws of those around her. Madeleine was not perfect, and she would have been pretty freaky if she was. Perfect marriages are not without fights and disagreements. Again, that would be freaky. As for perfect extended families, purrrlease. Those families who have got together and survived until today (New Year's Day)without killing each other, will be plotting, scheming and wishing failure on their kith and kin before the clock strikes 12.00 lol.

      The only way in which Kate can 'reach' the public, and more importantly, her children, is with warts and all honesty. That unpopular alternate route may seem terrifying, but revealing you are human with human failings, is the ultimate and most appealing defence.

      Delete
    2. "Madeleine was not perfect, and she would have been pretty freaky if she was."

      What an extremely odd thing to say.

      ..Chez

      Delete
    3. Because perfect in this instance means automaton Chez, or perhaps I should say subjugated. From the little I know of Madeleine, I would say the opposite was the case. She had a good vocabulary for her age and she was not fearful of making her demands with a full blown tantrum. That is, she was no different to any other non perfect 3 year old.

      No child is perfect Chez, and we shouldn't expect it from them. In many cases, it is those little imperfections that makes us love them all the more.

      Delete
    4. What really bugs me is how well the McCanns, including Madeleine, are known by people who have never met them, and how this 'knowing' is used to create exotic theories of what happened to Madeleine.

      Madeleine's disappearance only makes sense if you accept she was abducted. Every other theory requires farcical, conspiratorial nonsense and monstrous claims about the McCanns and their friends.

      ..Chez

      Delete
    5. It may bug you Chez, but it all emanates from the McCanns themselves. They put their lives in the public domain, every time they release a press statement they are inviting comment. Kate told the Sun she couldn't make love to Gerry and wrote a book entitled Madeleine! That's what happens when you make your life public.

      Fading into obscurity is one of the easiest options, ask Andrew Ridgely. People still talk about the Madeleine case because the McCanns have worked their socks off to keep themselves in the news - and kudos, 10 years on we are still talking about them.

      Delete
    6. People still talk about the Madeleine case because the McCanns have worked their socks off to keep Madeleine in the news. Without their efforts Madeleine would have been forgotten and there would have been no Operation Grange.

      Some, however, chose to interpret this as a money-making ploy, but this is just another of the ridiculous ideas by the daft and the malicious.

      ..Chez

      Delete
    7. Hi Chez, Happy new year to you. With your comment about Madeline's disappearance making sense if you accept the abduction theory. The only problem with that is there is no evidence of an abduction but there is some evidence that something happened in the apartment. The two books which I have read GA's The Truth of the Lie and Pat Brown's Profile of the Disappearance of Madeline McCann. These two books give a simple facts and theory of this sad case which I agree with you some books give far fetched conspiracy theories. I have an open mind on this case, I also have a theory as well which doesn't involve dark secrets or spies, but I don't believe the abduction theory as their and others after the event leave some unanswered questions.

      Delete
  44. Happy New Year, all altruists!

    J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll raise a glass to that J! Is it too early, lol?
      May their numbers increase dramatically in this year that ends in a '7'. Must look up what year it is for the Chinese, my fingers are crossed for Rooster.

      Happy New Year J, or is it two J's? And many thanks for all your insightful contributions x

      Delete
  45. Rosalinda & everyone A to Z,

    Cheers to the New Year! May it be a memorable one.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, the cheers made me pour a drink, I can't let me bubbles go flat, lol. It has been great chewing the cud with ya NL and long may it continue! Happy New Year! x

      Delete
  46. happy new year all above here ^^^ :)
    zig :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a very Happy New Year to you Ziggy! I have enjoyed your err, interesting views and happy to call you an old fogey anytime! ha ha. My kindest wishes for 2017 x

      Delete
  47. "Some, however, chose to interpret this as a money-making ploy, but this is just another of the ridiculous ideas by the daft and the malicious.

    ..Chez"

    Money is a medium of exchange. Money can buy ‘freedom’.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @07:57 it can also by silence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said, "this is just another of the ridiculous ideas by the daft and the malicious."

      ..Chez

      Delete
  49. @Chez
    A ploy implies aforethought ;planning.If it was the case, it would be the most elaborate and ridiculous of all time - especially from a professional couple in their tax - bracket. Plus, they'd be, in essence, selling a child. Any ploy for financial gains has been cynically employed by the media-especially the newspapers. The big payers in any financial payments is a whole different ball game. The reasons for those payments( or the reasons they think are acceptable and believable) is where the crux of any 'mystery' lies. That area alone should be the one scrutinised instead of the many distractions. Dogs evidence, statements that change, timetables that change, eye witnesses that lie( and get away with it) have all well past their sell-by date in terms of substantially relevant in any investigation or court case . Government officials , the MoD etc are tangible . What they did has been admitted.Why , is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to have to leave it to bigger brains than mine to decode this.

      ...Chez

      Delete
  50. If only someone with a ounce of integrity would allow those two perpetrators to be arrested and answer some very serious questions, all our speculation and theories could be put to bed once and for all!! no more wracking our poor aching brains trying to work out who's the guilty party, although I think we have already come to our own conclusion! I'm amazed there has been no further progress made on this case and I doubt if there will ever be closure, and those responsible dealt with as any unprotected person/ persons would be.

    A very Happy New Year to all.

    ReplyDelete